Carole J. Brown

The respondent, having been wholly successful on the underlying application, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the applicant's unreasonable conduct and abusive social media posts.

The applicant, who was unrepresented, did not provide costs submissions.

The court found that while the applicant's conduct and use of foul language on social media could not be condoned, substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $27,466.60.

The respondent sought costs of $85,885.03 on a partial indemnity basis following the applicant's unsuccessful application for leave to appeal an arbitral award.

The applicant argued costs should be capped at $40,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the issues were of moderate complexity and the parties' costs outlines were similar.

After making a slight reduction for duplication of work and excessive time spent by lead counsel, the court awarded the respondent costs of $79,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order under section 134 of the Condominium Act to permit entry into the respondents' unit to inspect and confirm the removal of Kitec plumbing.

The respondents had repeatedly refused entry to the corporation's engineers, preventing the building from being certified as Kitec-free.

The court found that Kitec plumbing is a dangerous condition and that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and the condominium's declaration.

The court granted the compliance order and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the respondent, Danny Francisco Correa, following his convictions for voyeurism, attempted sexual assault, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Crown also requested a determinate sentence and a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The respondent opposed the dangerous offender designation, arguing that the facts were ambiguous and that he did not pose a substantial risk of reoffence, suggesting a provincial sentence followed by probation.

The court found the respondent to be a dangerous offender, citing his demonstrated failure to control sexual impulses, the escalation in seriousness of his offences, and his lack of insight into his mental and sexological disorders (schizophrenia and pedohebephilia).

The court imposed a determinate sentence of two years in penitentiary (in addition to 2.5 years of pre-sentence custody) and a 10-year long-term supervision order, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a SOIRA order for life, and a 10-year firearm prohibition.

The decision emphasized the necessity of a supervised, compulsory treatment environment in a penitentiary due to the respondent's history of non-compliance and denial of his issues, concluding that a lesser measure would not adequately protect the public.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a successful Rule 21 motion brought by the defendants.

The court applied the principles of costs awards, including the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to determine fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs.

The defendants were wholly successful on the underlying motion, and their requested costs were found to be proportionate and within the parties' expectations.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity amounts to each successful defendant, payable by the plaintiff.

The applicant sought an order declaring her retainer and contingency fee agreements with the respondent law firm unenforceable, and for disgorgement of fees, or alternatively, an assessment of fees.

The respondent consented to the unenforceability of the contingency fee agreement and referral to assessment.

The court found a solicitor-client relationship existed and that the respondent was entitled to reasonable compensation on a quantum meruit basis, despite the applicant's rejection of a reasonable settlement offer.

The court fixed the fees and disbursements payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicants, seven youths residing in Ontario, brought an application challenging Ontario's cancellation of the Climate Change Act and its newly-enacted greenhouse gas reduction target under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018.

They alleged that the target violates their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Ontario brought a motion to strike the application under Rule 21, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was not justiciable, was based on unprovable speculations, depended on positive obligations, and that the applicants lacked standing for future generations.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the target and plan are reviewable by the courts, the claims are capable of scientific proof, the matter is justiciable as it challenges specific government conduct, the issue of positive obligations should be decided on a full evidentiary record, and the applicants meet the test for public interest standing at this preliminary stage.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought an action for Charter damages against a municipal employee, alleging his rights were violated because he received inadequate service in French at a City of Toronto office.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding that Charter damages cannot be sought against an individual, the Charter's language rights do not apply to municipal institutions, and the French Language Services Act does not apply to the City of Toronto.

The claim was struck without leave to amend as it was radically defective.

The successful defendants sought their costs of the trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct throughout the litigation was egregious and reprehensible, including forging a signature and improperly registering notices on title to delay the sale of a property.

As a result of this malicious and unreasonable conduct, the court awarded the defendants their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff was wholly successful in a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement regarding environmental pollution.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendant overtly breached its settlement obligations and engaged in dilatory tactics.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be reprehensible, including attempting to secretly transfer assets and blocking remedial work.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $212,532.99.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion in writing for default judgment for possession and foreclosure against the defendant unit owner for unpaid common expenses.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court granted the motion, ordering possession and foreclosure of the equity of redemption in favour of the condominium corporation, with a condition to pay the second defendant's mortgage upon sale.

The Crown moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff alleged that the Crown negligently supervised various entities, including the OSC, LSO, and judges.

The court dismissed the claim as a nullity because the plaintiff failed to provide the required 60-day notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Furthermore, the court struck the claim without leave to amend, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action as the Crown is not vicariously liable for the independent entities named.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for an order declaring that the respondent breached the Condominium Act and the corporation's declaration and rules by renting her unit on Airbnb.

The respondent, who is the daughter of the unit owners and the registered resident, did not respond to the application.

The court found that the respondent breached the residential use restrictions and ordered her to immediately cease all short-term rentals, remove the Airbnb listing, and pay costs of $9,491.61.

Medical negligence trial arising from an alleged delayed diagnosis of uterine leiomyosarcoma in a patient presenting with fibroids, prolonged heavy bleeding, and risk factors including age over 40 and nulliparity.

The court held that the gynecologist breached the standard of care by failing to perform an endometrial biopsy at the initial consultation and by maintaining inadequate clinical notes.

Applying the but for causation test, the court found that an earlier biopsy would likely have detected Stage I disease, leading to earlier hysterectomy and a substantially improved prognosis.

The court rejected the defence reliance on statistical literature as determinative and found both factual and legal causation established.

The defendant lawyers, Kubeskran Navaratnam, Marilyn Reiter-Nemetz, and Ronald Lachmansingh, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against them under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff, 9383859 Canada Ltd., alleged negligence and false statements against the lawyers who represented adverse parties in a failed real estate transaction and subsequent litigation.

The court found that lawyers generally owe no duty of care to opposing parties, especially when the opposing party is represented by their own counsel.

The court also held that statements made in pleadings are protected by absolute immunity and that the claims were statute-barred.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the claims against the defendant lawyers were struck without leave to amend, as they were deemed radically defective, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming a 50% partnership or beneficial interest in a residential property purchased by the defendant Kats.

The plaintiff alleged they had an oral agreement to share the down payment and carrying costs equally.

The court found the plaintiff failed to contribute any funds, fraudulently placed a second mortgage in Kats' name, and breached the purported agreement.

When Kats attempted to sell the property to a bona fide purchaser, the plaintiff improperly registered notices on title to block the sale, despite a court order.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, validated the sale agreement, and awarded the purchaser $35,000 in punitive damages for slander of title due to the plaintiff's malicious conduct.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral award concerning the interpretation of "Appraised Value" in a long-term commercial ground lease.

The dispute centered on whether the appraised value should be based on a mixed-use residential/commercial development or a mixed-use office/commercial shopping centre, considering zoning bylaws and current use.

The arbitrator had ruled in favor of the respondent.

The applicant alleged three extricable errors of law: failure to consider binding legal authority (official plan vs. zoning bylaw), failure to apply principles of contractual interpretation, and error in excluding expert reports.

The court found that the Ground Lease, which stipulated awards were "final and binding" governed the arbitration, not a separate arbitration agreement.

It further determined that the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable errors of law, and that the expert reports were properly excluded as they did not assist in contractual interpretation.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

This application concerned claims of oppression and declaratory relief brought by 37 townhouse unit owners against their condominium corporation.

The applicants alleged unfair treatment by a high-rise dominated Board of Directors, specifically regarding charges for interlock paving/steps, retroactive water charges, maintenance/landscaping/snow removal, and amenities, as well as inadequate notice practices.

The court found that the Corporation was responsible for the costs of interlock repairs and retroactive water charges due to lack of proper notice and inconsistent application of the Declaration.

It also declared the Corporation responsible for landscaping and snow removal for townhouse verandas and steps.

While the charge for amenities was deemed valid, the court urged regularization by bylaw and emphasized the need for proper notice delivery methods.

The court found the Board's management to be poor and unprofessional but ultimately concluded that their actions, while close to oppression, did not meet the legal threshold for an oppression remedy.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property, or damages in the alternative, after the defendants refused to close the transaction.

The defendants argued the agreement was invalid and brought a third-party claim for collusion against their real estate agent and brokerage.

The defendants failed to attend trial despite court orders.

The court found the property unique to the plaintiffs' multi-generational family needs and determined that damages would be an inadequate remedy due to the defendants' financial inability to pay.

Specific performance was granted to the plaintiffs, and the third-party claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the defendants.

The applicant, Abdirisaq Muse, sought a mistrial after being found guilty by a jury, arguing that the jury was improperly constituted due to the retrospective application of Bill C-75, which abolished peremptory challenges.

This application followed the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Chouhan, which held that the amendments regarding peremptory challenges were to be applied prospectively, contrary to the trial judge's initial ruling.

The Crown argued that the court was functus officio post-verdict and that the narrow exceptions to this rule did not apply.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to declare a mistrial post-verdict, except for specific, inapplicable exceptions.